Blackwater, Ted Stevens and the selling off of America

Juneau is hardly the top American target for terrorists, so what’s Blackwater doing in Alaska’s capital? Uniformed guards from the private security contractor have been reported guarding a radar station for tests of the National Missile Defense system now officially deployed in Alaska.

The system, thus far, has not proven itself capable of shooting down any missile even when the target missiles’ exact take-off time and trajectory are known. The system is designed to shield the U.S. against incoming Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM’s). this is the same controversial system that Russia is up in arms about being contracted to be installed in Poland.

Blackwater International, a private militia, better known for their mercenary firepower, recruits elite soldiers trained by the U.S. military and rents them back to the U.S. at a premium. They provide corporate security and training for law-enforcement officers. They hire mercenaries and trainers out to foreign governments and to corporations. While the US Marines used to guard our embassies around the world, Blackwater guards are now manning many of those posts. Recently, Blackwater has recruited highly placed ex-government officials, such as former CIA Director of Counterterrorism Cofer Black, to head up a private intelligence agency. Blackwater, like others of its ilk, is penetrating every aspect of our military and intelligence services.

Our federal government is pouring billions of dollars into the pockets of defense contractors at an alarming rate. This wildly expensive high-tech version of France’s Maginot Line that can be so easily and cheaply defeated by decoys, or overwhelmed by a real-time mass attack, will never be a practical defense. Security functions that used to be performed by U.S. armed forces are now being paid for at a much higher premium. In Iraq, services that used to be provided by military departments such as food services, housing, clothing, security, etc are now being provided by contractors at far higher cost to taxpayers.

All of this amounts to a colossal rip off of American tax dollars and it is creating a very dangerous threat to America’s independence and security.

The Blackwater guards in Alaska are hired by Chenega, an Alaska Native corporation associated with the Alaskan coastal village of Chenega Bay, population 86. Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, architect of the “Bridge to Nowhere” and recently convicted of a seven-felony string of corruption charges, is one of the principal proponents of the anti-missile system and was also instrumental in writing laws which help secure government contracts for Alaska Native Corporations. Senator Stevens didn’t invent these affirmative-action type laws that many people have grumbled about since the Sixties but he has helped refine and corporatize them: Chenega gets contracts through the Small Business Administration, rakes off a percentage, then lets giant Blackwater provide the actual services. Since 2000 Chenega has received over $1.1 billion in sole-source or non-compete bids from the Army, Air Force and Department of Homeland Security. Now that is what I call ‘using the system to your advantage’. It is what politicians who want to survive learn very quickly. It is one of the downsides of Capitalism.

And the Bush administration has tweaked our government by turning over functions that have traditionally fallen under purview of the military and intelligence services to private industry leaving the taxpayer to pay higher prices for those services.

Once these services are no longer a government function, they can be sold to the highest bidder. If these company CEO’s are bought by a foreign country or private bidder, then we have the situation where the U.S. can no longer defend itself. History has taught us that loyalty goes to where the next paycheck comes from. Under these conditions, does national allegiance mean anything?

Earmarking is a drive up ATM

Do you know what an earmark is? A member of Congress submits a request for money to fund a pet project by attaching the request to some bill, any bill, that is up for vote. The bill does not have to be related to the request. Does the bill have to be approved? I haven’t been able to get an answer to that question.

This latest method of requesting funds has become very popular over the last couple of years due to the fact that the House Appropriations Committee, who is tasked with determining what federal programs should receive funding, and how much they should get, has become so overburdened with requests and oversight duties that it is quicker and easier, and more likely assured, for Congress members to get their money using this new method. Because there are so many earmark requests, over 30,000 last year, many of them are granted without any oversight and without any follow-up as to whether or not the money was spent as declared.

This is like a family with 535 children, all repeatedly asking Dad for money. Dad becomes overwhelmed with the children’s demands that out of pure exasperation, he gives in and lets them all have whatever they want.

The bottle-neck between requests for money and the receiving of that money has been successfully bypassed by the use of earmarks.

Is the money well-spent? Come on, this is the U.S. Congress we’re talking about here. Nobody other than the recipients of these funds knows, and they most likely don’t know either.

And just who are the recipients? Lobbyists, special interest groups, politicians families? The biggest benefactors are the politicians requesting the funds and trading them for future votes.

Why is this bleeding of our tax dollars allowed to continue? Because the very people who benefit from this system are the ones who vote on its existence. What a marvelous system we have here.

Shouldn’t the spending of our tax dollars be scrutinized to validate the merit of a project? Is there verification of who is actually receiving these funds and that the funds are being spent as requested? Are we certain that our tax dollars are not being frivolously or unnecessarily spent on personal projects?

In the banking world, depositors money is spent to benefit the banking establishment, usually to cover loans and for capital investment. The use of that money is approved by a board of directors or some other appropriate committee. But these are private businesses. In the case of congress, the taxpayers are the board of directors. Sure we send representatives to speak for us but sometimes a Randy Cunningham gets involved. Sometimes a Ted Stevens gets involved. Congress has the money to spend because federal law says we have to give it to them, and then they get to decide who gets it based on what, seniority or merit or who scratched who’s back?

Last year, Congress approved more than $18 billion in spending through earmark requests. This may not sound like very much money compared to the projected 2009 budget of $3.1 trillion dollars, but where is our share?

I would like to get onboard this gravy train. Where do I signup to get money to study how congress spends our money. I want an earmark to get funding to educate people on why changing our driving habits will help conserve what fossil fuel resources we have left. I want money to fund a program that would re-direct our tax dollars to a better health care system, fully funded daycare for single working parents, beef up our social security system, give all teachers a huge raise, repair our dilapidated infrastructure. But most of all I want money to go back to the common taxpayer. You know who I’m talking about. The people who fund these projects while struggling to pay their monthly bills and put decent, healthy meals on their families tables.